IELTS TASK 2:
Some people believe that to protect local culture, tourism should be banned in some areas whereas others think that change is inevitable and banning tourism will have no benefits.
Some people argue that it is necessary to prohibit tourism in certain places to preserve culture while the protesters assume that banning is not needed because those places are no longer as important as they used to be. In this essay, I will scrutinize both sides and give my opinion.
On the one hand, people object to preventing tourists from visiting attractions due to several advantages it brings to both individuals and society. Firstly, the development of tourism acts as an economic boost in many communities. It helps generate enormous financial wealth while increasing the popularity and reputation of this country as well. Secondly, this industry also creates jobs for the native residents, which significantly enhances their living standard, especially ethnic people staying in isolated regions. Finally, it is undeniable that travel gives us a chance to explore the world. Visiting new places and meeting new people are such an effective way to facilitate understanding about different traditions.
Despite the above argument, disallowing travelling can also be a helpful way to protect the indigenous culture. One reason for this view is that tourism is destroying nature since tourists usually leave a huge amount of rubbish where they go by. Moreover, there also are some travelers with low awareness who spoil the original landscape by, for example, engraving names onto the wall of thousands-year-old constructions. Another reason is that peaceful life of the locals can be disrupted as many places have become touristy destinations and are always thronged with visitors. For instance, in the Singapore Sultan Mosque, that there are swarms of foreigners all the time making people impossible to do daily religious activities and have to disperse to smaller temples. Furthermore, tourism is industrializing countryside, causing the traditional jobs and skills like farming to die out as well as increasing the population because of people moving for employment opportunities.
In conclusion, while I accept that tourism does have considerable benefits, it is still necessary to ban it in certain places such as sacred structures or places where their original situations remain unchanged, however this is not applicable for places which have lost their functions and will be beneficial if it is converted into tourist attractions.
Some people believe that to protect local culture, tourism should be banned in some areas whereas others think that change is inevitable and banning tourism will have no benefits.
Discuss both sides and gives your opinion.
Some people argue that it is necessary to prohibit tourism in certain places to preserve culture while the protesters assume that banning is not needed because those places are no longer as important as they used to be. In this essay, I will scrutinize both sides and give my opinion.
On the one hand, people object to preventing tourists from visiting attractions due to several advantages it brings to both individuals and society. Firstly, the development of tourism acts as an economic boost in many communities. It helps generate enormous financial wealth while increasing the popularity and reputation of this country as well. Secondly, this industry also creates jobs for the native residents, which significantly enhances their living standard, especially ethnic people staying in isolated regions. Finally, it is undeniable that travel gives us a chance to explore the world. Visiting new places and meeting new people are such an effective way to facilitate understanding about different traditions.
Despite the above argument, disallowing travelling can also be a helpful way to protect the indigenous culture. One reason for this view is that tourism is destroying nature since tourists usually leave a huge amount of rubbish where they go by. Moreover, there also are some travelers with low awareness who spoil the original landscape by, for example, engraving names onto the wall of thousands-year-old constructions. Another reason is that peaceful life of the locals can be disrupted as many places have become touristy destinations and are always thronged with visitors. For instance, in the Singapore Sultan Mosque, that there are swarms of foreigners all the time making people impossible to do daily religious activities and have to disperse to smaller temples. Furthermore, tourism is industrializing countryside, causing the traditional jobs and skills like farming to die out as well as increasing the population because of people moving for employment opportunities.
In conclusion, while I accept that tourism does have considerable benefits, it is still necessary to ban it in certain places such as sacred structures or places where their original situations remain unchanged, however this is not applicable for places which have lost their functions and will be beneficial if it is converted into tourist attractions.
